this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2026
243 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
85947 readers
4813 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you may either be overestimating the effectiveness of nukes or underestimating the thickness of planets.
Project Plowshare envisioned using nukes to dig holes on the order of hundreds of meters, not thousands of kilometers.
I'm doing neither one, but it's pretty clearly not an idea for this time. We lack an awful lot to be able to pull off a project at that scale, but frankly that makes me more curious not less.
Even not underestimating the scale, I'm not sure it would work because all the debris would need to be ejected from the thousands-of-kilometers-deep hole. And then you'd also have to have a solution to stop the walls from caving in before the next bomb had a chance to arrive. It's almost as if you not only need thousands of extremely powerful (even for nukes) bombs, but also need to deliver them in a continuous stream to keep the blast pressure up and the hole open.
I feel like, at that point, the easier strategy to accomplish your goal would be redirecting a large asteroid to impact the planet, or something like that.
And we would fuck that up and alter the orbit of Mars.
Oh, I don't care about the surface viability. An asteroid capable of altering the core would probably liquefy a significant portion of the planet though which is also not desirable.
The goal of the thought is to give the planet a magnetosphere closer to that of earth, anywhere between would be a success. The general idea is to get the core somewhat hotter and moving much more, which probably also means it needs a more beefy moon than it has to maintain the change for any significant amount of time.
idk it's just an idea I like to kick around sometimes.